Are you suggesting that a cyclist running a red light should only be considered a minor offence? Given that motorcyclists are usually fatally injured by cars also, should their penalty for running a red light be reduced to something similar to that of a cyclist, given your argument? Perhaps a higher fine would reduce a cyclist's incentive to run a light and, being a 'vulnerable road user' also, not put themselves in harm's way. Yes, I am a driver, motorcyclist, and regular road cyclist.I find that a small group of cyclists tend to carry this air of 'entitlement' to be less regulated on the road, because they don't damage the infrastructure like heavier vehicles do - but they seem to miss the point - that an attempt is being made to bring their behavior in line with other road users to protect themselves, from themselves. Again, the majority are pretty good, but it's the usual minority that they're targeting.

Fipsy wrote:Are you suggesting that a cyclist running a red light should only be considered a minor offence? Given that motorcyclists are also usually fatally injured by cars, should their penalty for running a red light be reduced to something similar to that of a cyclist, given your argument? Perhaps a higher fine would reduce a cyclist's incentive to run a light and, being a 'vulnerable road user' also, not put themselves in harm's way. Yes, I am a driver, motorcyclist, and regular road cyclist.

Agree, and I, as you, am a driver, motorcyclist and cyclist. Will a cyclist directly cause as much damage/injury as a motorcycle or a car? No. But vehicles trying to avoid said cyclist can. So the action of us as cyclists running a red light, or other offences, has as much chance of causing an accident as a motor vehicle does.

And yet the Idaho stop is legal in some us states and parts of France. This surely indicates there are substantial differences between bicycles and motor vehicles in regards to moving through red lights - no where in the world allows motor vehicles to move through red lights. If you say that cyclists running red lights creates this threat - "as much chance of causing an accident as a driver" - I say BS. What are the statistics? With cyclists causing so few deaths or injuries on our roads and 75 or 80 percent of car-cyclist collisions found to be caused by drivers, that doesn't seem likely at all.

How can the 'common sense' that cyclists running red lights be a danger not actually be true? It's because cyclists know that if they mess it up its they who will be hurt. Self preservation is a powerful motivation for responsibility and cautiousness. Something that drivers in their air con cages with crumple zones and air bags don't feel as much.

simlin wrote:But how on earth will the police fine the cyclists without visible registration plates making them accountable for their actions?

Without a means of identification, it's obviously going to be difficult for police - conceded by a number of police I know personally.

I think if the amount of cyclists that are generally seen to be touting road laws grows, and subsequent studies/trials/accidents/fatalities highlight the trend, then some form of bike ID may well be on the cards - though this may be technology dependent, due to the inherent hazards of sharp-edged plates on bikes, and mounting practicality.

This is part of the reason front-mounted number plates haven't yet been implemented on motorcycles.

I'm sure in time, CBD areas will be using sensors and vehicles (including bikes) carrying transponders that are used for ID'ing infringers.

BUT, if cyclists as a group, can be seen as respectable road sharers, then the authorities won't consider it financially viable to invest in the infrastructure necessary to catch those few who consider themselves the exception to the rules.

Being the host of the TDU, I expect there is little political interest in taking a punitive view of cycling in general.

simlin wrote:But how on earth will the police fine the cyclists without visible registration plates making them accountable for their actions?

Without a means of identification, it's obviously going to be difficult for police - conceded by a number of police I know personally.

I think if the amount of cyclists that are generally seen to be touting road laws grows, and subsequent studies/trials/accidents/fatalities highlight the trend, then some form of bike ID may well be on the cards - though this may be technology dependent, due to the inherent hazards of sharp-edged plates on bikes, and mounting practicality.

This is part of the reason front-mounted number plates haven't yet been implemented on motorcycles.

I'm sure in time, CBD areas will be using sensors and vehicles (including bikes) carrying transponders that are used for ID'ing infringers.

BUT, if cyclists as a group, can be seen as respectable road sharers, then the authorities won't consider it financially viable to invest in the infrastructure necessary to catch those few who consider themselves the exception to the rules.

Being the host of the TDU, I expect there is little political interest in taking a punitive view of cycling in general.

You don't appear to grasp that cyclists are vulnerable road users and so should not be subjected to the same fines as motorists. Pedestrians cross against the lights and get killed by motor vehicles but no one proposes that the fine for a pedestrian crossing against the lights should be the same as for motorists. There are good reasons for this, namely that pedestrians are vulnerable road users, just like cyclists.

The political pressure from some quarters to fine cyclists the same amount as motorists is designed to placate those who erroneously believe that cyclists are subsidised road users when in fact it's the reverse.

As to the claim about the frequency of cyclists breaking road rules, aside from the obvious point that the consequences are invariably the worst for themselves, as a frequent motorists I'm astounded by the shocking driving of a very large percentage (with texting while driving an epidemic, followed by red light running).

Fipsy wrote:You don't appear to grasp that cyclists are vulnerable road users and so should not be subjected to the same fines as motorists.

I do agree that cyclists are vulnerable road users, however, I'm not sure that the vulnerability level is a useful determinant of fine level.

Referring to my earlier point - would this mean that motorcyclists should be fined less than car drivers, and scooter drivers less than motorcyclists, but more than cyclists? (based on the 'vulnerability ' argument)

Taking a step back to look at a bigger perspective, it would seem that fines are a government's lazy method of modifying behavior. I would much rather see a focus on road user education such as regular, simple, TV ads that depict different road events, and appropriate ways traffic users should respond/act. Not unlike the recent, although tacky, campaign on using 'zip lanes'.

Unfortunately, governments today have a habit of setting down lots of rules and regulations, and happily remind us of how big our punishment will be if we breach them, but are not at all interested in educating/encouraging the community to adapt to them.

I think an approach along those lines would save us the need to focus so much on fines etc, and instead generate a far more proactive attitude.

I agree with you Fipsy, relative risk shouldn't determine the fine level & the fine for car drivers should increase to match heavy vehicles. The fine for doing less than 10km/h over the limit would rise from $112 to $335, the fine for driving an unregistered vehicle would increase from $637 to $1,346.

I'm fine that fines should be relative to mass of the vehicle and engine size , just like rego. So yes speeding on a scooter would be less than a motorcycle and that less than a car etc. it's the mass and engine size of the vehicle that proportions the danger to others. It has the added benefit of deincentivising larger vehicles which makes the roads safer for all.

Comparison with rego also suggests that there shouldn't be speeding or red light fines for bicycles at all - how about that?

Fipsy wrote:Unfortunately, governments today have a habit of setting down lots of rules and regulations, and happily remind us of how big our punishment will be if we breach them, but are not at all interested in educating/encouraging the community to adapt to them.

Exactly my thoughts Mulgar Bill. I get pretty angry when people go on about cyclists not being "accountable for their actions"...of course they are still accountable for their actions! I think they mean not as easily identifiable.

I read in the comments on the same piece regurgitated in the advertiser today saying increasing fines is in response to an increase in bike riders flouting the law...but I am yet to see any hard evidence or statistics backing this view up so can only assume that it is the biased opinion of the masses/few/unintelligent (actually I only have web-polls and vitriolic "news" article comments to go by when determining the percentage of people that hold this view).

I apologise for troll baiting earlier. I couldn't help it and my sarcasm doesn't really come across very well without the accompanying facial expressions and eye rolls.

yugyug wrote:And yet the Idaho stop is legal in some us states and parts of France. This surely indicates there are substantial differences between bicycles and motor vehicles in regards to moving through red lights - no where in the world allows motor vehicles to move through red lights.

Common practice in South Africa for all vehicles... for a red light .. slow .. give way to any traffic .. but if no traffic .. go through. The thinking is "why stop for a robot?". Hijacking of and theft from vehicles is prevalent, so stopping provides an easy target, so for safety people don't stop unless they really have to.

Fipsy wrote:I think if the amount of cyclists that are generally seen to be touting road laws grows, and subsequent studies/trials/accidents/fatalities highlight the trend, then some form of bike ID may well be on the cards - though this may be technology dependent, due to the inherent hazards of sharp-edged plates on bikes, and mounting practicality.

This is part of the reason front-mounted number plates haven't yet been implemented on motorcycles.

Motorcycles used to have front number plates.. the older ones in SA were placed to visible for the sides .. making good pedestrian cutters. The requirement was removed for safety reasons, or challenged in court IIRC, anyway removed ... around the 1980s. There have been moves to place front number plates back on motorcycles, simply so that certain Victorian people can use their cameras to charge them fees on motorways.. disguised as law enforcement concerns.

yugyug wrote:And yet the Idaho stop is legal in some us states and parts of France. This surely indicates there are substantial differences between bicycles and motor vehicles in regards to moving through red lights - no where in the world allows motor vehicles to move through red lights.

Common practice in South Africa for all vehicles... for a red light .. slow .. give way to any traffic .. but if no traffic .. go through. The thinking is "why stop for a robot?". Hijacking of and theft from vehicles is prevalent, so stopping provides an easy target, so for safety people don't stop unless they really have to.

.

That doesn't like it's actually legal though - just sounds like the police are busier with other things

If this gets any traction we should have Pedestrians also fined the same amount. Any valid point regarding a cyclist endangering other road users would also be valid with pedestrians. I am sure a $437 fine for jogging over King William Road under a red light would go down well.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.